Often, utilities and other users of combustion-based energy generation systems seek flexibility in the type and quantity of fuel used to produce electrical power. Fuel flexibility permits such entities to reduce exposure to fuel supply shortages, mitigate and/or exploit fluctuations in fuel prices, and even take advantage of government incentive programs. However, fuel flexibility is highly limited when co-firing multiple fuels in one combustion system (e.g., burning coal and biomass in the same furnace) due to emissions compliance, operability, and maintainability issues. Such issues typically include, although are not limited to, difficulty controlling varying emissions profiles and/or fouling and agglomeration. Therefore, gaining additional flexibility may require separate combustion systems for each fuel type.
However, there are also numerous disadvantages to operating multiple parallel, standalone energy production facilities. Operating separate facilities requires parallel equipment and labor, demands higher fixed operating and maintenance costs, suffers greater inefficiencies due to parallel parasitic loads, etc. Furthermore, limitations on supportable combustion system size for certain fuel types (e.g., due to lower temperature capability, pressure capability, high moisture content, etc.) can result in even greater inefficiencies. Accordingly, separate energy generating facilities provide substantially less efficient energy production than would be achievable in a single, larger, integrated facility.